Fire and life safety professionals are typically involved with helping building owners with a range of issues surrounding the occupancy of a building. It is not often that we are approached by a building owner with a proposal to stop using their building and vacate it. A phone call or email of this nature may leave us looking like a “deer in the headlights” after we receive it. However, we may come across this building condition, so what can we expect and what approaches are there to deal with this issue? This blog discusses some fire safety considerations that may be useful when confronted with a vacant building situation.
Vacant Buildings: An Unusual Predicament
Unfortunately, there are circumstances where a building may become vacant. A building that becomes vacant can arise from one or more of the following examples: economic downturns (in general or with a particular industry), financial difficulties for the building owner (foreclosure), real estate issues (saleability), general neglect, abandonment, transitionary periods for building use, zoning changes / land use planning, unfinished projects, etc. The global COVID-19 pandemic has exposed these factors where some buildings in specific sectors have become, or are at risk of becoming, fully vacant. These vacancies may be temporary or prolonged.
There is no definition in the National Fire Code of Canada (NFCC) for “vacant”. The Oxford Dictionary defines “vacant” as “empty; not being used”. As such, the term “vacant” may mean different things to different people / organizations. An example of this variation of interpretation is an insurance policy. An insurer may define “vacant” in their policy terms, and it could be a lot different than what the typical interpretation of the term “vacant” is and what people perceive it to mean. An insurance company may consider a building vacant if it is left unoccupied for a few days. It is incumbent on an owner to check their insurance policy regarding this.
Talking it Out With the AHJ – The Earlier the Better
Whether it can be foreseen that a building may become vacant in the future or it is something that happens with short notice, the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) should be notified as early as possible to get their input. Engaging in early discussions with the AHJ will help the stakeholders to understand the AHJ’s position on the matter and help all involved parties to prepare to address the issues surrounding the vacancy of the building. Discussions with the local Fire Department are a must, but the Building Department, By-Law Services and Planning Department (to name a few) may also have concerns that need to be addressed. It is also important not to assume that all the relevant parties within the AHJ are coordinated and discuss your requirements for you, as this is often not the case. Open communication with all interested parties is very important in the early stages as it will help to make the building owner(s) aware of the expectations and steps involved to vacate the building in the most prudent and safest way possible.
When engaging in discussions with the AHJ regarding a vacant building, it is important to understand that the case of a vacant building puts the AHJ in a position where they may need to balance things. On the one hand they have a building owner who is obviously undergoing some difficulties but on the other hand the safety and well-being of the community, the protection of municipal resources and the reduction of risk is critical. Here are some examples of preliminary questions the AHJ may ask regarding the vacant building:
- Is the building owner a willing participant in coming to a resolve on how to deal with the property? What is the history of the building?
- What are the reasons for vacating the building? What are the plans for the building? Is this foreseen to be a temporary vacancy or will it be prolonged?
- How will the vacancy of this building impact the surrounding neighborhood?
- Has the building owners’ insurance company been notified? What is their standpoint on the specific building to be vacated? What do they require? (the AHJ may want written verification from the insurance company)
- How will the building owner deal with the maintenance of building systems while the building is vacant?
- Who will be the point of contact for the vacant building? Who will manage / oversee the vacant building?
- How will the building owner deal with security at the building and access control?
The National Fire Code of Canada 2015 (NFCC), Division B, Sentence 2.4.6.1.(1) indicates: “Vacant buildings shall be secured against unauthorized entry”.
One of the biggest risk factors of a vacant building is that they tend to become targets for vandalism and arson. As such, it is highly likely that the AHJ will want the overall building / property secured in some manner and will want forms of security implemented. Some examples of the forms of security that may be expected include, but are not limited to, the following:
- Boarding up window and door openings in a tamper proof manner,
- Installing locking devices on doors,
- Installing secure fencing surrounding the property,
- Hiring a security company to do building patrols and provide access control, and
- Other security measures that are site specific to a certain type of property / use.
Additionally, the AHJ is also going to ask about the existing operation of the building and how it will be maintained. The intent behind this is to prevent the vacant building from becoming a hazardous, derelict safety concern. Here are some likely expectations from the AHJ:
- Maintaining existing fire protection and life safety systems in normal, full operating condition,
- Details regarding control of ignition sources (How will they be controlled? Who is responsible?),
- Maintaining fire department access to the site / building to effect firefighting operations, and/or
- Proper notification of the AHJ if building use / conditions change.
The implementation of the above noted examples will depend on the type of building, the complexity of the building and the building ownership. In some circumstances the AHJ may opt to be stringent in their approach based on the risk presented by the vacant building and the history of the building. In other circumstances, the AHJ may have a level of comfortability that one or two of the above noted approaches is sufficient. It really depends on the specific situation, but these examples are a good starting point to get an idea of what may be asked / expected.
Building Owner Absenteeism – Recourse
This blog post assumes that the building owner is an active participant in mitigating hazards associated with a vacant property until it can be sold, re-purposed or demolished. This is a reasonable assumption as building owners can face liability issues and fines if their buildings are not maintained, even if they are vacant. However, you are probably asking yourself: what if the owner simply “walks away” from the building and abandons it? While it is beyond the scope of this blog post to get into the details, a municipality can seek resolutions to a vacant building with an absentee owner, with some examples including, but not limited to: orders / enforcement, legal action / fines, municipal undertaking of the work to mitigate safety issues and recouping costs through property taxes all the way up to initiating proceedings to have the building demolished (and recoup costs).
Decommissioning Fire Protection Systems in a Vacant Building
There are circumstances where a building owner that is proposing to vacate a building may also want to propose to the AHJ that the active fire protection systems in the vacant building be decommissioned (i.e., shut down). This may occur when it is viewed by the owner that it is unsustainable to maintain these systems in the vacant building. This proposal is generally due to the costs associated with maintaining the fire protection systems as well as the costs to maintain heating systems (due to freezing issues) in a vacant / unoccupied building that is not generating any income.
The decision to decommission fire protection systems is obviously something that should never be taken lightly. In fact, some AHJ’s may not even entertain the proposal. However, you can certainly expect that those that do are going to want to see the proposal in writing, are going to have questions and are going to want to see a plan in place that is reasonable and shows that the building owner has done their due diligence in ensuring that fire hazards are sufficiently mitigated on an ongoing basis. Even if a reasonable proposal is put forward, approval by the AHJ is not a foregone conclusion.
[convertkit form=1987179]
Crossing the “t’s” and Dotting the “i’s” – Seeking Approval
While decommissioning is not discussed in the NFCC, it is mentioned in the Ontario Fire Code, Division B, Article 6.9.1.1. which indicates: “Except as otherwise provided in this Part, fire protection equipment and life safety systems shall not be decommissioned or permanently taken out of service without approval.”. The definition of “approved” in the Ontario Fire Code is “approved by the Chief Fire Official”.
Regardless of the jurisdiction, when it comes to decommissioning a fire protection system(s), the local Fire Department / AHJ is either required to be notified (in the case of Ontario) or it is prudent, from a safety and liability standpoint, for the building owner to initiate this discussion prior to decommissioning. Decommissioning a fire protection system can not only impact the building from a property protection standpoint but can also impact the responding fire fighters / emergency personnel if a fire does occur.
Here are some preliminary questions that the AHJ may ask the building owner:
- The same security questions noted above. The “human element” within a building is one of the main reason’s fires occur. Access control / restricting entry is a critical factor.
- The same insurance questions indicated above. An insurer may not cover a building with intentionally shut-down fire protection systems.
- What type of storage (i.e., ignition sources) will be left inside the building? Will the building be completely emptied of all storage materials?
- What type of outdoor storage will there be?
- What are the existing construction materials of the building?
- How will fire department access to the building be maintained?
- Will fire hydrant coverage be affected?
- Will the means of egress / exiting systems in the building be maintained?
- Will the fire containment systems (fire separations) be maintained?
- If the fuel supply (e.g., natural gas) and electrical power supply is proposed to be turned off, where will these systems be turned off / terminated? Will these systems be terminated outside the building?
- How will any unforeseen work that needs to be done in the building be managed and monitored? Who will be notified? Who will oversee this?
- What modifications are necessary to the buildings’ existing Fire Safety Plan (if required)? Does the building need a Fire Safety Plan prepared considering the circumstances?
The majority of these questions deal with the control of ignition sources in the building and how firefighters can still do their job without being put at undue risk. However, as people tend to be the catalyst in fires occurring, questions regarding security of the vacant building are once again a critical factor in the prevention of fires occurring and the risk mitigation strategy. The answers to the above noted questions (as well as any other questions pertinent to the specific building) will have an impact on the AHJ’s decision regarding decommissioning fire protection systems.
Although vacant buildings have always been a concern in a community, the COVID-19 pandemic has unfortunately shown us that this problem may become more prevalent due to the hardships that have been placed on building owners in some property sectors. It is important to recognize the risks associated with vacant buildings and start the appropriate discussions with all stakeholders to mitigate the hazards to the property, the community, and the responding emergency personnel.
2 Responses
The Building Code deals very specifically with time periods of work stoppage during construction while a Building Permit is active; but once the building is completed, the building becomes a Fire Code concern. Most Fire Departments have sufficient funding for fighting fires, but little for fire prevention. Until the need for comprehensive fire prevention components of local fire departments is provided, abandon buildings are easy targets for vandalism and fires. It might be advisable to suggest an addition to the Fire Code that deals with measures for abandon buildings. These buildings are particularly hazardous in urban areas where abandon buildings are in close proximity to occupied buildings or vegetated areas that could quickly spread fires.